Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Automatic multi-resume feature for podcasts and audiobooks (FS#11748)
RE: Automatic multi-resume feature for podcasts and audiobooks (FS#11748)
From: Mike Giacomelli <giac2000_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:12:20 -0700
> On 22.12.2010 02:47, Mike Giacomelli wrote:
> >> As I've said a few times, we should take a step back and try to come to
> >> a consensus of what should be addressed ignoring what this patch does or
> >> does not address, then hold this patch up against that and see if it
> >> fits within that scope.
> > Are you actually interested in implementing this consensus though? I don't see much interested in actually working on this patch. JdGordon and I were the only ones even willing to review it. Talk is great, but interest is better and that seems definitely lacking here.
> I'm not really seeing that it's Paul's duty or responsibility to to
> implement anything. sideral is seeking for its inclusion, not Paul.
> sideral should be refining the patch until we're happy enough with the
> consensus, shouldn't he?
I don't think so. Unless someone has actual technical objections against the implementation, or thinks we shouldn't support automatic resume (and I think no one does), IMO I can commit whenever I'm ready. Its fine for people to request new features or changes but theres no obligation beyond that the patch implement a feature we want in a technically sound and maintainable way without negatively impacting the existing use cases. Beyond that you're all SVN committers, so you can make whichever improvements you want after the initial commit of the core of the patch.
> I looked at the patch a bit, but there's little point in reviewing the
> code changes if I'm not entirely confident with what the patch
> implements. And I'm not entirely confident because I see a vast
> discrepancy between what the patch essentially offers as new features
> and the degree and complexity of configuration it adds.
This makes sense. Once all the lang string issues are figured out, I'll probably just split the settings into a separate patch, post it on the tracker, and commit the core feature with something like Paul's suggestion. Then Michael, Paul, or you can figure out the exact settings that should be presented to the user.
Received on 2010-12-23